2008年10月31日司法院釋字第六四九號解釋，宣告身心障礙者保護法第三十七條第一項前段規定：「非本法所稱視覺障礙者，不得從事按摩業」違憲，應自公布日起三年內失效。釋憲理由書認爲，視障者知識能力日益提升，因此可以選擇之職業種類也增加，繼續保留視障按摩業是忽視視障者除了按摩之外的工作能力。此外，按摩保障政策實施三十年來，視障者的社經地位並未大幅提升。既然立法手段與實際目的間缺乏關聯，釋憲、書認爲該法條應予以廢止。然而，釋憲文中的理由多建立在與史實相達的錯誤假設之上。本研究將指出，不論過去的視障按摩保障政策，還是現在的取消保障條文，都不是爲了增進台灣視障者的福祉或工作權利，而是社會長期對視障者排除與剝削的立法手段。

On October 31, 2008, the Taiwan Justices of the Constitutional Court issued Judicial Yuan (J.Y.) Interpretation No. 649, which proclaimed that it 'is unconstitutional for the Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act to restrict massage work to vision-impaired individuals. Such provision shall be invalid no Later than three years subsequent to the issuance of this Interpretation'. Their reasoning was that, as the knowledge and capability of many vision-impaired people gradually increases, their choice of occupation will also increase, and, thus, the statutory provision in question tends to make the governing authority overlook the fact that the talents of vision-impaired are not limited to the massage business alone. Nearly thirty years after the Act’s promulgation, according to the J.Y. interpretation, the social-economic condition of the vision-impaired has not seen any significant improvement. There is no substantial nexus between the objectives and the means; therefore, the provision contradicts the meaning and intent of Article 7 of the Constitution on the right of equal protection. However, these statements by the J.Y. were based on erroneous assumptions that contradict the historical facts. This study will show that restriction of massage business to the vision-impaired, or the cancel of it, came about not in order to protect the welfare and labor rights of the vision-impaired in Taiwan, but, rather, as discriminatory judicial means of systematic exclusion and exploitation.